License final usage

Guys, another newbie question. Maybe @PurpleFog or @RedOctopus, both ContentID samurais, can help me out with this issue. Yesterday was my sons birthday, and I did a silly video footage with some of my music as background and was planning to upload it to my personal YouTube account (not to the 6 vids abbandonware WormwoodMusicChannel account I have) so that my family and friends can see it. Needless to say, no monetization or anything.

As I recently registred my whole portfolio I was wondering if I would get a claim!?!?!? How do I get permission from myself to use my own work? Is it possible to get one’s music license?


Thx in advance! :slight_smile:

You don’t need to license your own music. as it is yours, you can do whatever you want with it.

You have the option to either white-list your own channel, or you can use their form to clear the claim of any video you wish… no question asked, no license required.

1 Like

Disputing a claim is free and quick. It took less than 24 hours, I did it for some of my customers and everything were fine. I understand your concern of course, but seriously, everything are made and set up for the customers only. We have decreasing revenue due to race of the bottom, and now content ID is our only way to protect our work. So I won’t have compassion for the fact it took you 24 hours more inside your process. that’s the part of the business, claim is now well know by everyone, it’s up to the customers to adapt to it. I adapt myself to subscription where customers can have ton of music for Pennys, I adapt myself to 5$ pricing and the fact I earn few cents on my works and I adapt myself on the fact that due to all of this my earning had decrease a lot this year :man_shrugging:


So let me see if I understand Osynthw. Everything is “set up” for the customers who lawfully license the tracks from Audiojungle to release it without audio watermarking, to YouTube who montiors which videos are monitized. So you won’t “have compassion” because it takes 24 hours (not to mention a clients reaction or an expensive call to legal counsel.) to clear a claim.

Well ok, so if I paid $30 or $40 for a license, and the video was uploaded without noticing the claim that’s my bad luck beause your “earnings decreased a lot this year”. Got it.

With all the free music available, and and inability of creators to whitelist return customers, any thoughts on why your “earnings decreased a lot this year”, Anyone?

You can complain to Youtube if you are unhappy with how their system works. We authors have nothing to do with it.

The best way would be to have a field in the video upload form where you can simply attach the license, and that’s the end of it. Unfortunately, they didn’t go that way.

Now, music is a copyrighted asset, you simply have to show that you have the license for it. The way you show you have a proper license is entirely up to Youtube. They created your inconvenience, so being mad at music authors is pretty pointless.


Interesting assumption. Since a lot of my work is for a government agency, we had discussion with YouTube, Envato, and the claimants. Their consensus is for the “creator to whitelist” the license purchaser.

No skin off my nose, because there are tons of license free music out there. and so far, Epidemic has not caused me the same issues.

Don’t know what the assumption was in my post.

Whitelisting a channel is indeed a specific option authors can do, in the case of a series, or as a courtesy for a loyal customers they built a relationship with. However the process is still in the hands of Youtube and authors cannot guarantee the channel will remain whitelisted, as any other copyright claims on other assets used on the channel would cancel the whitelist status. This process is thus specific to certain cases only and in no way generalized.

As for the normal claim clearing process, it is what it is, as set up by Youtube. Authors can help you with the process when there’s an issue, but that’s about it.

Now, feel free to used even more exploitive platforms to fulfill your music needs. But as a rule of thumb, it’s never a good idea to go with unregistered music, as those tracks eventually get fraudulently claimed, in which case you won’t be able to clear the claim at all.


I don’t want to upset anyone, but I do believe both @EquisNan and @tatyanahill2 (who posted in other thread) have indeed very valid points here. Please, don’t get me wrong, all my portfolio is registred with ContentID and I do think that protecting our intelectual property is of the utmost importance but I also can stand on the shoes of a costumer that has to deal with process of removing a claim (that’s not always that stratight) or maybe they are not fully familiar with what a claim exactly is and don’t want any headaches.

Recent real case, from a few days ago actually: The footage guy of a project I was working on asked me for some guidance to browse through some stock music. Among others I mentioned Envato. He instantly stopped me with something like “not a chance, every single time I use something from there I get my contents banned and have to explain to a pissed off client (sometimes months after the video was uploaded) that it might take me a few days to solve this. They sometimes get it, but sometimes they seem like they might hire another guy the next time.”. Not literally, hahaha, but really, this happened to me a few days ago in a Construction Event Coverage doing location sound and post.

I fully agree with @PurpleFog that YouTube should implement a way to upload a video directly with the license PDF to avoid claims in the first place, but right now it might be a PITA for many.

I’m not taking a side here, just bringing up that both parts, authors and customers, have their reasons and that the current system could be improved in some way that allows us authors to protect our copyrights and spare the content creators a worry.

I’m agree with your wise words.

But I don’t think we have to handle such complain, direspect, on our forum. So sorry if my words were too passionnate but we handle lot of thing without saying a words. Enough is enough. This thread was an informative thread about content ID. Not a place to complain or taunt author.

Support are here for that.

I was flagged not him.

1 Like

In most cases, this is what the real problem is.

Sorry, but that’s not a valid point. Many don’t want any headaches with having to buy a license at all, which is way ContentID is so crucial for us. There’s a process in place, that Youtube has made an industry standard. Seing it as a headache makes no more sense than seeing the Youtube upload page as being a headache.

Now I agree that the way Youtube set this up is far from ideal, but again what do authors have to do with it?

Not an accurate depiction of what happens. Nobody gets their content “banned”. A copyright claim is just a notice that a copyrighted asset is used on the video, it has no negative impact on the channel whatsoever.
Also, this not an Envato thing. Registering your copyrighted asset is an industry standard. Not doing so is unprofessional and exposes you, as well as your customers, to fraudulent claiming. Being mad at authors for registering their music is ill advised and utterly pointless.


Fully agree, thx for sharing your insights with such clarity. I still think that’s important to see this from both sides of the fence and that the current process can be improved.

It’s great how you exposed things above. Hope it sheds some light on possible misconceptions.

I think a fair way of looking at it is that broadcasters have always had to report use of copyrighted assets in their productions, so why should it be any different with online platforms? As much as it is a bit of extra work, anyone who uses YouTube professionally should simply cost for it like any other part of the job. Avoiding tracks that use content ID will only bring deeper potential problems in the future.

YT’s requirement to show proof of sync licensing isn’t just some inconvenience that Google thought of to upset its users, it’s an important tool to police copyright infringement. Any author that offers their music without this protection is playing a dangerous game. Think of it this way… if someone stole some shots from your videos and started selling them as their own, then they protected them meaning that you could no longer use your own work without somebody else getting paid for it, you too, would seek a way to protect your intellectual copyrights, surely?

As for using epidemic, if I needed someone to make a video for me, I wouldn’t pick a company that exploited naive filmmakers, and I would hope that filmmakers using music tracks would do us composers the same courtesy, but such is the stone cold heart of capitalism I suppose. :man_shrugging:t2:


For information, if youtube has set up content ID, it is legally to be in order with the legislation of intellectual property and copyright societies. Without it, youtube would have millions of lawsuits.

1 Like

I totally understand and agree with the above. Still, I think how the claims system works right now could definitely be improved and I try to see it from the creators perspective too.

Check this post for instance… 8 days already:


I think it’s faster to release when the author do the removal, and I think it’s better with Identifyy than Youtube Content ID…
I’m very surprised by all this delay, my experiences with the removal / whitelist were deeply better than that and really faster

1 Like

Yes, I think YouTube could do so much more to facilitate music licensing on their platform. At the moment, the claim/dispute process feels a little bit like you’re getting a bollocking for using shít that you shouldn’t, then having to vindicate yourself by means of appeal. Like getting caught with medically prescribed weed.

There should be a kind of cue sheet built into the upload process whereby you can provide all the details of any third party assets used (including PRO IPI and ISWC numbers etc.) and a facility to upload a copy of the relevant licence.


THANK YOU WormwoodMusic. As a company with signficant tax and legal compliance to contend to, my clients do NOT understand and are NOT sympethtic. We are fully aware of what a claim is, and what it means for a third party to threaten to monetize not-for-profit clients work for a few weeks. AdRev is particularly obstreperous, despite proof of licensing. Envato gave us the run-around.

It appears that those who own the intellectual property are in a better position to encourage Envato to sort this out with YouTube. To that end, I passed on the few reasons my clients raised, similar to your reason for avoiding this platform. Despite the rude reception, I care because I have a backlog of purchased, NOT USABLE licenses from a beloved creator.

His country is at war and he is not in a position to assist us with whitelisting.

No one is asking to use your work without a license, but rather the way Envato content apparently triggers THIRD PARTY (non-YouTube) claims. Our last one lasted over a week, despite providing a proof of the license. And during that time they informed us that THEY could monetize our work. I’m passing on reasons my clients (who have their own raft of legal counsel) don’t want to use Envato. Please don’t infer my company engages in copyright infringement.

Sorry, I should be more clear in my posts, that’s not what I’m saying at all.

Music authors protect their copyright by using third party content ID services. There are several reasons why content ID is important for us. Not just Envato authors either, but this also applies to authors from most other professional music libraries as well. This situation isn’t by any means caused by, or exclusive to Envato.

The main reason that I use content ID is that if you don’t protect your own music this way, then you leave yourself open to the possibility of someone else registering the music for themselves. Once that happens, it is a massive headache to regain control of your own work, which then also becomes a huge problem for any content creators that have legitimately used the music, since the author of the music no longer has any control over who can use the music.

@pinkzebra does a way better job of explaining this than me, so I hope they don’t mind me posting a direct quote from their website:

"Content ID and AdRev have been around for years, and they have become an accepted and standard part of the music licensing equation for many composers as well as for YouTube content creators.*
For a long time I was reluctant to register my music with Content ID out of concern for the people who were already actively using my music in their YouTube videos. It turns out that my previous decision to stay on the Content ID sidelines allowed unscrupulous people to capitalize on that vulnerability.
I went through a period of time where my AudioJungle music portfolio was under repeated attacks by people who attempted to fraudulently register my music with Content ID with the intent to illegally collect advertising revenue from YouTube videos using my music. I fought back each time, claiming my rights as the composer and copyright owner of my music, but the process was messy, costly, and prolonged.
Each time I fought these illegal attacks I was left with a helpless feeling that my customers had been harassed in a situation that I had no control over and to a degree that was unknowable to me. In addition, I had lingering doubts about whether the fraudulent situations were ever truly resolved completely. And I felt outraged that my ability to have full control of my music was unrightfully taken from me.
I decided to register my entire music portfolio with Content ID (AdRev) to maintain control of my music. In doing so, I am able to better serve my customers and prevent the fraudulent harassment of my customers by individuals with malicious and illegal intentions.
Thanks for your support!"

Asking authors to forgo their content ID copyright protection isn’t really going to fix the issue that you are experiencing. Google/YouTube could do a lot more to help. As I said in my previous post, they need a complete overhaul of how content ID is managed and integrated into their platform. But since they have their own music library that they want you to use, it is unlikely that they would take steps to facilitate music from rival libraries. Sadly, I don’t think we’ll see an overhaul of the YT claim/dispute procedure any time soon.

Envato has no say in what YouTube or the content ID service providers do, so they’re not in a position to help much. You mentioned that your main issue is with AdRev registered tracks. One thing that Audio Jungle does do to help is that it encourages its authors to declare which company they are using to provide their content ID. I would always recommend that YouTube creators use content ID protected music for the reasons that I mentioned above, but if you are having particular issues with AdRev being slow to release claims, then you have the option to only use tracks that use a different service, like identifyy for instance. If you find that identifyy registered tracks are easier for you to work with, then you can simply include the word ‘identifyy’ in your AudioJungle search term and the results you see should all be identifyy registered tracks (and no AdRev ones).

The clearance procedure directly through identifyy is typically quicker and more reliable than using the clunky YouTube dispute procedure. You simply fill in this form: Whitelist — HAAWK
It works well for me. Usually, when I make promo videos, I include YouTube uploads as a part of the service to the client, and I schedule the video release a day or so after the upload so I have time to clear the claim before the video goes public. This does mean the client giving us their YT channel login details for the upload, so I know that’s not always possible, but in cases where I don’t have control of the upload process, I always make sure that they understand what content ID is and how it will need to be processed using the provided licence. I explain that this is a standard part of the YouTube upload procedure and is simply the process of the correct copyrights being cleared for use. — Although as I mentioned before, YouTube’s wording in the claim/dispute procedure isn’t very friendly, which is why I suggest they use the Haawk (the parent company of identifyy) clearance form whenever they can.


Thanks for the detailed explanation which I will screen shot to send to the creator. Haawk is easy - AdRev acting on behalf of a (major) studio, is quite another animal. Appreciate your time.